If income tax rates of 39.6% on individual income over $200,000 or household income over $250,000 is such a guaranteed disaster, then why was economic growth so much better the last time those exact rates were in effect than it has been since George Walker Bush lowered the top marginal tax rate?

If George Walker Bush lowered the rates then why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama II simply raise the rates? After all if the President can lower rates, then he can raise them.

Reed, you've stated that if congress (republicans) votes for spending, that's all that's required to justify that spending.

I said no such thing. Since they adopted the "southern strategy" and became a party of traitors against the Enlightenment philosophy on which my country was founded, no vote of any GOP does anything to "justify" anything. What I did say is that once they have already voted to approve spending, pretending to be "fiscal hawks" and play chicken on the debt limit is disingenuous, and you know it.

Since you are unable to honestly paraphrase me, do not paraphrase me at all. If you wish to reference anything I say, include the hyperlink and the full quote.

As to comparing me to Pol Pot, according to Godwin's Law you lose this entire argument.

...1/2 the workers are not making any sacrifice. So who are you asking for more sacrifice from?

I always repeat myself to statements like these.
Everyone pays taxes of some sort, and the poorest of our workers here in my county for example are still paying 8%+ of their incomes just in sales tax. Combine that with the bad wages some people are earning while making their employers rich and the inflated costs due to high taxes and some of the highest property taxes in the country, and a statement like "1/2 the workers are not making sacrifice" really starts to sound like right wing radio talk... It's utter rubbish (to quote our friends across the pond)#resist

If George Walker Bush lowered the rates then why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama II simply raise the rates? After all if the President can lower rates, then he can raise them.

Because as we all know, the political cost of lowering taxes (however foolish) is always exactly the same as raising taxes (however prudent).

Not sure if you intended irony or not.

It's always much easier politically to lower taxes (even if they don't need to be lowered) than to raise them (even if they badly need to be raised, as they do now).

I've let this fester for a while. I restated what you said, Bush set rates, and even pointed out plainly the president setting rates. You missed that twice. So now it has come time to flat out ask you, why is Obama talking to Boehner if the President sets rates? Are the rest of your observations as astute? Perhaps you represent the average voters ignorance of the system? If so a dang good reason to require testing of basic knowledge of government functioning before allowing voters anywhere near a ballot box!

We, my wife and I, are taxed on our income. That would include our investments.

We are taxed on our home.

We are taxed on what we buy at the store.

Some one who makes minimum wage does not own a home, or would they have investments. They are only taxed at the store. If the same person has just ONE kids they pay NO income tax at all. They have a tax at the federal level taken out but they get ALL of that back and in MOST cases a lot more then they paid in.

Our tax system is clearly within the Constitution and that is a head count tax divided by what is spent at the federal level, per year. That was changed in 1913 but that fact does not change the books must be balanced and each year divided by what is owed with the use of whatever percentage applied by law, per person. The per person was not changed and the law clearly states that ALL pay something.

In Australia, the national minimum adult wage is $15.96/hour. Out of this a full time wage earner will pay 19% income tax. Additional to this is a 1.5% Medicare levy. There are no separate state tax deductions. The top income tax rate is 45% which kicks in at $180,000 PA

Funnily enough, businesses are still profitable (they must be, US companies are buying them up like ice cream on a hot day) and we have one of the best economies in the western world. Unemployment is just over 5%.

So over here even minimum wage earners pay tax and are not living hand to mouth. Therefore, welfare is not such a drain on government finances.

good reason to require testing of basic knowledge of government functioning before allowing voters anywhere near a ballot box!

I like it.

Sample test.

1. Where does Obama get his "stash" of Obama money from?

Sales of "The Audacity of Hope". ;)

2. When the Federal Reserve creates official looking documents using Microsoft Word, prints them on expensive paper, names them U.S. Treasury securities and then sells them on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, what happens to the value of the money currently in circulation?[/quote[

Oooh, oooh! The opposite of upvalue?
That is, of course, assuming they actually use Microsoft Word and expensive paper. Did you work at the Treasury after your stint in the pot-smoking, Satan-worshipping A.F., but before your teaching career?

4. Which branch of govenrnment has the authority to decide how to spend money?

Errr, Leggywomenturnmeonaslaveit?

5. True or False? The U.S. government has been operating on a constitutionally approved budget since President Obama has been in office.

The last-time the Congress has agreed on a budget, under either majority, occurred when ... ?

6. In a few sentences, describe the difference between deficit and debt.

Deficit - debt = {f,i,c,i,t}, while debt - deficit = {b,t}.

7. What is the U.S.'s current budget deficit? (round to the two most significant digits)

42.

8. How many zeros are in "one trillion"?

In the US system,
three zeros = thousands
six zeros = a pair of three zeros = millions
nine zeors = three triple zeros = billions
and twelve zeros = a quaduplet of three zeros = trillions

However, since tri = three and bi = two,

this naming system is illogical.
I hope it was not The Founders who dreamt up this naming system.

9. What is the U.S.'s current debt? (round to the three most significant digits)

420.

10. When the government borrows money it pays interest. How much did the U.S. government pay in interest last year?

0. We don't pay our stinkin' debts!

[quote]11. How many years would it take for you, personally, to pay off the national debt as of the static number last year based on how much you paid in federal income tax last year? (round to the nearest 1,000 years)[/url]

In Australia, the national minimum adult wage is $15.96/hour. Out of this a full time wage earner will pay 19% income tax. Additional to this is a 1.5% Medicare levy. There are no separate state tax deductions. The top income tax rate is 45% which kicks in at $180,000 PA

Funnily enough, businesses are still profitable (they must be, US companies are buying them up like ice cream on a hot day) and we have one of the best economies in the western world. Unemployment is just over 5%.

So over here even minimum wage earners pay tax and are not living hand to mouth. Therefore, welfare is not such a drain on government finances.

T.A.

For those of you challenged AU$15.96 is US$16.54/hour.

Question TA, how easy is it to emigrate to Australia?

If we set that rate would the USA be overrun with immigrants? How many jobs would be sent offshore?

In the absence of TA, and as my son did consider it, so I was informed of the Aus Immigration site, there is a list of skills that Aus wishes to import. I also get news from two of my cousins as nearly all their offspring (7 out of 9) are now in Auz or NZ. One of those cousins is moving to Perth next year when she retires.